Silverman v. MLB Player Relations Committee (Silverman II) Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 20,000 case briefs (and counting) keyed to over 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee (Silverman II) | 880 F. Supp. 246 (1995)

Collective bargaining is important in any industry, but it plays a special role in major league baseball and how players are spread across teams. The nineteen ninety-five case of Silverman versus Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee gives the play-by-play of what happened when employment negotiations fell apart before the agreement could reach home plate.

During the nineteen ninety-four baseball season, the Major League Baseball Players Association, or the Players, entered negotiations with the twenty-eight Major League clubs, or the Owners. Their most recent employment agreement, known as the Basic Agreement, had just expired.

The existing Basic Agreement categorized players with six or more major-league seasons as free agents who, through the free-agency system, could set their wages with the club’s owners. An anticollusion provision detailed that this wage process was an individual matter, rather than a negotiation in concert with other players or owners.

Reserve players, or those with less than six seasons, were governed by a boilerplate contract known as the Uniform Player’s Contract, or U P C. This was a fill-in-the-blanks style contract incorporated into the Basic Agreement that set salary terms for reserve players. It included a salary-arbitration provision.

In negotiations, the Owners wanted to restrict the free-agency system, remove salary arbitration, and add a salary cap. Players opposed the salary cap and proposed a tax system. In August, the Players went on strike. In December, the Owners unilaterally removed salary arbitration and the anticollusion provision and imposed a salary cap. The Owners declared an impasse, but the Owners and the Players continued negotiations.

Both the Players and Owners filed charges of unfair labor practices with the National Labor Relations Board. The Board charged the Owners with violating the duty to bargain collectively in good faith and petitioned the court for injunctive relief pending the Board’s hearing.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/silverm...

The Quimbee App features over 20,000 case briefs keyed to over 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/silverm...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom  
Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom  
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries